If you ever use the NHS you need to be sure what you're voting for (& yes even if you have private healthcare and have surgery or an illness you'll be put in an ambulance and sent to an NHS hospital if there's a problem)

Be honest with yourself - do you think it's right to force NHS Trusts to sell off their assets to a private company quickly and cheaply or else their funding is cut??

YANBU.On a personal note this election for me is about the NHS, Education, Police, Fire Brigade not Brexit. I will be voting Labour.

Brexit is going to happen regardless (I voted to remain) we wont get a decent deal who ever is doing the negotiating, however I think I would rather it be JC purely for the fact that he doesn't rise to TM and the Tories childish name calling and taunts.

I am open to the idea of reform but conservative ideology seems to be based on usa healthcare which is one of the worst healthcare systems in a developed country, its about selling things cheap to companies these Mps have shares in.

I wish reform had been more along the german system which seems to be insurance based but much better than the USA system.

No other country has the NHS in the form we have and yet many of them have better health outcomes on many measures than we do.

One of the problems with the NHS today is that circumstances have changed since its inception but no government has been brave enough to properly address the many issues facing it. The inefficiences and waste within it are mind-blowing and it's in nobody's interest to address them. The answer has been tweaks here and there, ever more money thrown at it without properly considering whether that is what is needed in each instance, and reliance on the goodwill of a large number of the employees.

It's not sustainable in its current form. There is little enthusiasm among the electorate (despite what you might read on here) for the ginormous tax rises and/or cuts elsewhere that would be needed to keep it free-at-point-of-use immediately for absolutely everybody with any minor or major condition, acute or chronic, 24/7, 356 days a year.

Oh FFS. If people swallow that propaganda without going and checking the facts for themselves they are morons.

The Naylor Report makes the very good point that some NHS buildings are so old and decrepit and so unsuited to modern medicine practices that updating them to be suitable makes no sense whatsoever as new buildings can be provided for a much better price adding value to the tax payer and offsetting costs.

It is not 'selling off' the NHS. It is reinvesting and the value of those estates will remain within the NHS Estates arm. The sales process will also be fully audited, monitored and reviewed to the nth degree including by independent sources, so the chances of them being sold undervalue are just about nil.

I'm curious to know where these health care services with better outcomes are? The NHS comes out close to top in all key performance indicators- even with the chronic underfunding and less per capita spending.

Crumbs1. ..The USA system is terrible on that chart. Our system, because it's free at point of use, always does very well at scooping up the poor which is what that chart shows and what I want from universal healthcare.

Another piece of propaganda crumb. Anybody can go through a report and pick out the five or six measures out of hundreds where the UK does well and ignore all the others where it does badly, present the successes in isolation and say that shows it's brilliant when the actual report showed nothing of the sort.

We have poor survival rates for several types of cancer, heart attacks and strokes and less doctors and hospital beds than other developed countries.

Bill do you not believe the NHS is being sold off? Why is Jeremy Hunt (who co-wrote a book about privatising healthcare) and others from the cabinet going to America having talks with a private healthcare provider?

I'm not sure is fair to say we throw money at the nhs. All healthcare systems are expensive and the nhs doesn't seem to cost a greater percentage of gdp than the better performing places like France, Sweden. It's just how this cost is paid that varies.

Because, silky private healthcare providers have been providing NHS services since the last LABOUR government opened it up to them. (I was very, very involved with the process for a trust at the time) It doesn't mean that private healthcare providers have bought or own any part of the NHS. It means they hold a contract to operate services on behalf of the NHS and under it's supervision for a limited time.

Old buildings have always been sold off to fund new ones in the NHS. For example, in Sheffield the old Jessops Maternity Hospital was sold off and the new Jessop Wing opened in 2000. Some parts of the old Jessop wing were knocked down and new buildings put up by the buyer the University of Sheffield. The Victorian part is now the Uni's department of music as they can make use of lots of small poky rooms for music practice that are effectively useless in the modern NHS. It's a lovely development, you should google it. In return patients got a brand spanking new maternity hospital fully equipped for modern medicine and in tip top maintenance rather than have patients in leaky, mouldy, draughty rooms and operating theatres frequently shut down because of maintenance problems or wards closed off and beds out of use for the same. Didn't see the same hysteria when Labour did that.

So in answer to your question no, I don't think it is being sold off. I think more involvement of private contractors is being brought in to bring it more into line with European systems which gave much better health outcomes.

Amazing how in denial people are over this. The naylor report is saying the nhs estates are being disposed to private companies, you can pretend its not happening if you like but it is a fact.

I'm not in denial at all. I'm just sensible enough to see that fixing and adapting old buildings at a cost which is more than their value is stupid and it's a much better option to sell them and build newer, cheaper, more suitable buildings. It's better value. And the NHS is not being 'sold off' because the money goes straight back to the NHS not central government, and has to be reinvested in capital projects, e.g., building new clinics and hospitals.

So what do you think of the fact its being offered on a '2 for 1' offer with the taxpayer making up the shortfall? I'm not trying to say labour or tories are better or worse I'm just concerned that the NHS is being privatised and replaced by the US model via the back door. There is evidence that that is what is happening.

It's not a '2 for 1' offer. The sales are being incentivised by central government offering to match the price they get for the sale with central government fund for capital investment. Far from being an incentive to sell the estates cheaply as that doofus claims, it's an incentive to maximise the sale value as much as possible so that they will receive as much money as possible from the government too. This is being done by NHS Trusts. They want to get as much money as possible into their trusts to reinvest. The match money won't go to private investors, it goes straight back into the NHS.

They ARE NOT selling 2 properties for the price of one. What they are doing is that when the NHS sells a property they not only keep the money from the sale for reinvestment, they also get exactly the same amount from central government given directly to the NHS.

He has just used the phrase 2 for 1 because he knows some impressionable people will hear that and think that it means properties are being sold two for one. It doesn't mean that, it means that the NHS gets double the money for capital investment.

OP - you have posted this on nearly every thread to do with the election your right to do so - but it is becoming a bit tedious - once would have been enough and YABU - we all make up our own mind and the NHS is basically unaffordable as it is

The Naylor Report, supported by May, makes some alarming recommendations for not only selling off of NHS property assets, but offering a ‘2 for 1’ deal where the purchase price is matched with an equal amount of taxpayers’ money from the Treasury. An NHS Trust could be sold far cheaper than the going rate, knowing the loss would be covered by the taxpayer. If a developer offers a million pounds for land and property worth two million, the loss doesn’t hurt the seller because the taxpayer (you and me) will be made to stump up the difference.

The report recommends:

HMT (Her Majesty’s Treasury) should provide additional funds to incentivise land disposals through a ‘2 for 1’ offer in which public funds match disposal receipts

People are sharing it because they are right to be worried about privatisation, maybe you can all afford private healthcare but I know I can't and I would like the government to be more transparent about their plans.